June 11, 2026
Natural systems are complex. Despite our best efforts, sometimes the actions we take to support climate adaptation can have unintended consequences. When this results in increased climate vulnerability, we refer to it as maladaptation.
Maladaptation is a nuanced concept and can be difficult to diagnose. This complexity, combined with concerns about discussing failure, has made it difficult for adaptation professionals to have open conversations about maladaptation. That’s a missed opportunity, according to a new perspective piece published in Climatic Change, We Need to Talk About Maladaptation.
Rather than ignore maladaptation, a team of researchers affiliated with the Midwest Climate Adaptation Science Center (CASC) and University of Minnesota argue that purposeful dialogue can support shared learning and advance the field of climate adaptation. Recent conceptual advances in maladaptation, including tools for evaluating adaptation outcomes and defined archetypes for the most common forms of maladaptation scenarios, could be translated into practical strategies through these conversations.
This work grew out of a World Cafe session on maladaptation the team held at the 2024 National Adaptation Forum. “I think we all saw just how hungry people were to talk about adaptation going wrong and how to avoid it,” said Dr. Sam Reed, one of the paper’s lead authors. “We had 80+ people packed into the room, all of whom were engaged and discussing this topic with one another.” The session at NAF was itself a product of Deep Engagement Week at the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment, the institutional host of the Midwest CASC, which Reed explained, “highlights the value of giving scientists concerted time with collaborators and to dream up new ideas. We are frequently expected to develop new ideas on the fly rather than in concert with one another.”
The paper explains that talking about maladaptation could take many forms, including structured storytelling exercises or communities of practice. Conversations about strategies for dealing with uncertainty, failure, and unintended outcomes across other sectors, from computer science to medicine, could offer insights. Finally, integrating maladaptation dialogues into all stages of the adaptation cycle – Diagnose, Act, Plan and Evaluate – would support the best possible outcomes for projects. Dr. Amy Waananen, another lead author on the paper, explained, “The approaches we suggest for putting maladaptation dialogues into practice all share the underlying goal of normalizing conversations about things going wrong. Making reflection standard practice can help agencies detect warning signs before issues get out of hand.”
The paper proposes frameworks for conversations to productively address maladaptation in a structured and unbiased format. These were modeled in a Midwest CASC Community of Practice meeting in January 2026. The Community of Practice, a space for shared learning among adaptation practitioners and researchers, provided a supportive space to explore participants’ personal experiences with maladaptation. Two regional natural resource management professionals shared short, story-based examples to illustrate how well-intended adaptation efforts can produce unexpected outcomes and how those moments can become opportunities for growth. Participants spent time in small groups reflecting on their own experiences and exploring how maladaptation shows up in practice, who it affects, and what lessons emerge. “In practice,” Reed said, “these conversations could be led by natural resource agency leadership and set the stage for more truthful and honest participation amongst everyone in the organization.”
The body of work around maladaptation continues to grow, as do opportunities for shifting the culture around discussing it. “The ideal solution to maladaptation is to avoid it altogether,” Waananen said. “That requires understanding what communities and stakeholders see as failure and how they tolerate risk.” Reed pointed to a recent paper authored by Dr. Abigail Lynch and several others affiliated with the CASC network that highlights the need for “switch points” in the Resist-Accept-Direct (RAD) climate adaptation framework – i.e., moments when managers may decide to switch from a resistance to an acceptance strategy. “Merging some of the maladaptation literature into this RAD switch point work might lend itself to some really applicable ideas,” Reed said.
Read the publication in Climatic Change: We Need to Talk About Maladaptation.